The Many Questions Supply Chain Managers Are Asked to Answer

The following are questions customers typically ask supply chain managers:

  • “Why is it taking you so long to deliver my order?”
  • “When will you deliver?”
  • “How many of the items we ordered will you deliver today?”
  • “How much of an item do you have available?”
  • “Your items didn’t meet our specs; when will you replace them with the right ones?”

Executives also ask supply chain managers the following:

  • “How much did we ship today?”
  • “How much did we ship so far this month?”
  • “How many orders did we receive from Sales today?”
  • “How many pending orders do we have?”
  • “Why do we have so many pending orders?”
  • “When will you deliver the pending orders?”
  • “When will the items be produced?”
  • “How many of the items will we make?”
  • “Why does it take so long to produce?”
  • “When are the materials for production arriving?”
  • “How much will we pay for materials this month?” 
  • “Why are we getting customer complaints?” 
  • “How are you responding to the customer complaints?”
  • “Our costs are too high; how can we reduce costs?”
  • “What’s your plan to comply with government rules on sustainability?”
  • “How safe is our product?”
  • “What’s your plan to stop pilferage of our products?”
  • “Why are we wasting materials?”
  • “How can we reduce inventories?”

Vendors and 3rd party service providers also ask questions:

  • “How much of this material are you buying?”
  • “When are you ordering?”
  • “When do you need the materials that you’re ordering?”
  • “What are the specifications of the materials that you want to buy?”
  • “When will you pay me?”
  • “How much will you pay me today?”
  • “What is your company’s response to my bid?”
  • “How many trucks do you need tomorrow?”
  • “How long do my trucks have to wait before they get loaded at your warehouse?”
  • “Your bid is too low; can you pay me more?”

Supply chain managers encounter questions like these all the time.  Most who ask want answers immediately and supply chain managers feel the pressure to respond. 

The questions, however, lead to more questions.  And it leads to more searching for answers.  Supply chain managers sometimes spend the whole day (if not days) trying to answer questions than actually managing their operations.  

Supply chain managers work in a broad scope.  The questions they are asked would likely touch not only where there are assigned but also functions adjacent to theirs.  Logistics managers who are asked the status of shipments may find out there are issues with production shortfalls and materials shortages.

And because supply chains aren’t only limited to an enterprise’s internal functions of procurement, manufacturing, and logistics but also include the interactions with other enterprises upstream (vendors), downstream (customers) and branches (e.g. service providers, parts suppliers), the questions that supply chain managers are asked would also lead to issues outside the borders of the enterprises they work for. 

Supply chain managers, therefore, are in that unique and unenviable position of dealing with questions that go beyond their job descriptions. 

Supply chain managers should welcome questions, however, not dread them.  Not only they should anticipate them, they should seek them out. 

Questions like the ones above offer windows to opportunities as they indicate what executives, customers, vendors, and other stakeholders find important.

Questions are not problems.  But they together are the first step in figuring out what and which important problems need to be addressed and solved. 

Questions unravel the problems we need to solve.  Seeking them out and defining the problems behind them are proactive methods for supply chain managers to not only answer pressing questions from stakeholders but also open avenues of opportunities which lead to lasting benefits. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Solving Problems, Cultivating Ideas Together

I worked for Procter & Gamble Philippines in the late 1980’s.  I was a production manager who oversaw the food packing lines of the company.  As production manager, I was invited at times to join the food brand team meetings led by marketing managers, who were responsible for their respective products’ success. 

P&G is famous for its brand management approach.  Introduced in 1920’s by Neil McElroy, who later became P&G’s president, brand management focused on individual products rather than the overall business.   Every product would have a brand manager who would be accountable for its market share and profitability. 

The brand managers of P&G formed teams represented by different functional members from all over the company.  These included people from product design & development (PDD), finance, sales, market research, and manufacturing. 

For the two (2) food product brands, my senior manager boss of food manufacturing was the member of both brand teams but the brand team at times would invite me to join meetings in cases where they needed some technical input. 

Brand managers delegated problems with their ideas to respective team members to solve.  PDD, for example, was charged with solving product design issues.  Finance was accountable in forecasting profits and presenting costs.  Sales made sure they got customer orders and that the product was distributed in all trade segments and geographic markets. Manufacturing was expected to provide time and resources for PDD’s test runs of product prototypes and to ensure volume targets were met when the product was launched. 

Brand managers would press brand team members to solve problems especially when there were tight deadlines to meet.  The careers of P&G brand managers depended on the successes of their ideas; failure was not an option.

This caused some friction between departments in which brand managers had to work harder to get supportive commitments from team members.  Some did and became successful.  Some didn’t and they left the corporation.   

One factor to why brand managers were unsuccessful was that they overly delegated problems to team members, to the point of blaming them for failures.  These brand managers misplaced delegation with teamwork. 

As much as there may be individual inventors who bring their ideas into realities single-handedly, successful idea-creators see the need to work with problem-solvers. 

Ideas and problems are not mutually exclusive.  Neither idea nor problem is worked on separately.  Problems are not obstacles to ideas and ideas should not be seen as unpleasant disruptions that lead to problems.

We should welcome both ideas and problems.  Ideas are the “a-ha’s”, the insights that are foundations of creative concepts.  Problems are the challenges that can provide us opportunities. 

When we encounter problems while inventing from an idea, we should try to seek opportunities from them, as much as we may try to overcome them as obstacles.  Problems can lead us to better ideas, as much as ideas can lead to problems. 

Team leaders therefore should not delegate as in pass problems with accountabilities to other team members.  Telling a team member to do a job and to do it correctly or else is not delegating; it definitely isn’t teamwork. 

Delegating is about entrusting and empowering a team member to do a job rightly and excellently.  It doesn’t exclude the compelling need to work with people. 

When an idea for a new product is created, a brand team should cultivate it together.  Team leaders and product design experts should tinker with new product ideas together.  Leaders should study profitability with finance experts together.  They should plan roll-outs to the trade together with the field sales people.  And they should test products and observe production runs together with manufacturing. 

The key word is together.  Teams are there together for a common purpose and when it comes to ideas and problems, they should tinker with them together to attain success. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Why We Need Engineers

I spent fifteen (15) minutes one morning pounding several pills into powder.  The powdered pills are medicinal supplements for my pet cat, to fight against liver ailments. 

One of my cats tested for high SGPT, an enzyme when found high in a blood test, indicates problems with the liver.  The vet prescribed the cat needed one tablet of liver supplement a day.  But since I found it impossible to force feed the cat with a tablet, the vet said it was okay to crush the tablet into powder and mix it with the cat’s food. 

The vet gave me the prescription and told me in what form I can give the pills to the cat.  She didn’t tell me how to do it.  That’s for me to figure out.  I used a kitchen hammer to crush the pills, put the powder in a bottle, and sprinkle close to the prescribed dosage on the cat’s food every morning.  I crush as many pills I can altogether to avoid having to use the hammer frequently and save time. 

The vet prescribed; I administered.  The vet tells me what’s needed and I do the work of planning and implementing.  And this essentially is a small-scale example of what spells the difference between scientists, doctors, & executives and engineers.  The former group formulates; the latter makes it work. 

Sometimes, however, the former group of scientists, doctors, and engineers believe engineers aren’t needed in some cases.  The former people try to work things out by themselves in the hope of saving time and money by not engaging the latter, the engineers.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. 

And when it doesn’t, it can be disastrous.

A beach house in Florida was seen the only one left standing and intact after a hurricane.  The owners foresaw the risk of storm surges and invested in a super-strong foundation and superior construction materials.  The owners wanted a strong house on soft ground on a beachfront.  They invested in engineering to make their house withstand the risks.  It paid off as seen from the picture. 

Unfortunately for the beach house neighbours, it didn’t turn out so well.  They obviously didn’t engage engineers when they built their houses.  They lost their homes as a result. 

Enterprises & organisations don’t need engineers for every problem.  We can agree with that.  Many problems can be solved by common sense.  Many problems aren’t engineering related.  Many are rooted in economic, legal, and personnel issues. 

There are problems, however, engineers are in the best position to solve. 

When the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a pandemic stemming from the SARS-Cov-2, popularly known as CoVID-19, political leaders and executives instituted strict health protocols in their respective communities and enterprises.  Borders were shut; people were told to stay home; factories were closed; deliveries were delayed.

Shortages happened.  Hospitals ran out of supplies such as face masks and personal protective equipment (PPE).  Supermarket shelves emptied.  Undelivered perishable food was thrown away.  Factories didn’t get their materials or didn’t have enough workers to run production lines. 

And when vaccines became available.  No one figured out how to distribute them.  Executives made promises that they couldn’t keep especially when supply ran short.  Contracts were broken as national leaders of countries where the vaccines were manufactured decided to keep the limited supply for their own people. 

Leaders appointed czars and task forces.  But because they were mostly made up of doctors, scientists, politicians, and even soldiers, the appointees could only go as far as making manifestos and policies.  There was hardly anyone figuring out the planning and implementation of what these appointees wanted to do. 

Leaders and executives probably thought they just needed scientists and a few good managers.  They didn’t figure they needed the people who’d have the expertise to set up structures and systems to make their ideas realities. 

That’s what engineers do.  Make ideas into realities.  But many leaders don’t know that or haven’t accepted that. 

And that’s how managing the pandemic became one big tragic mess.  More than 300 million reported infections. More than 5 million people dead.  Billions of dollars and euros spent.  Millions of people out of work.  Thousands of enterprises closed, some forever.  And shortages and disruptions in supply chains continuing.

Scientists make formulae.  Executives develop policies.  Engineers build and help implement solutions. 

In many cases, many leaders deliberately forget the last sentence of the above paragraph.  And just like the beach house, the few who do remember are left standing while the others are swept away. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Problems are Doorways to Opportunities

Since the start of 2021, semiconductor chips, which are used in cars, trucks, computers, and smart-phones, have been in short supply.  Supply has been so short that automotive companies have shut down assembly lines and consumer electronics corporations have delayed roll-outs of new products. 

Bloomberg reported in its September 22, 2021 Supply Lines newsletter that the gap between “ordering a semiconductor chip and delivery is still growing.” 

But four years before in 2017 (see chart above), it was already taking at least 10 weeks to deliver a semiconductor chip from time of order.  So, while businesses in 2021 anxiously wait up to 20 weeks for their chips to arrive, why were industries tolerating long order-to-delivery times of up to 10 weeks in the first place?

The dictionary defines a problem as an “unsatisfactory situation.”  It is a “state of difficulty that needs to be resolved.” 

Many of us equate problems with crises and disruptions, that is, we see a problem only when it hurts us such that it becomes urgent to address it. 

Hence, we tend to avoid them or try to resolve them as quickly as possible.  The fewer problems we have, the better, we usually say. 

The dictionary, however, also says it is a “a question proposed for solution or discussion.” 

Problems can be doorways to opportunities, in which if we think of them that way, we should seek them out and solve them for the ideas that would benefit us. 

Enterprises and even governments are scrambling hard in 2021 to fix the semiconductor chip shortage that has crippled factories and caused supply shortfalls of many products, from cell-phones to computers.  Most saw the problem when order-to-delivery lead times extended from 10 to 20 weeks.

If enterprises in 2017, however, proposed the “question” of shortening the supply lead time of 10 weeks, and found a solution, would industries be undergoing a crisis in 2021?  Wasn’t there a way to bring the number of weeks of lead time down to 4 weeks or even less? 

It was obvious that since 2017, company executives had accepted the 10-week order-to-delivery cycle and adjusted their inventories and production schedules to cover for the waiting time.  Executives managed the 10-week lead time into their financial forecasts.  The 10-week lead time was not considered a problem. 

If one enterprise in 2017 had seen the 10-week lead time as a problem rather than as an acceptable fate, and in the process of “discussion” found a “solution,” one wonders how much of a competitive advantage that enterprise would have in 2021. 

It’s never really worthwhile to ask “what-if” questions especially after the fact of a crisis.  But in the process of problem solving, as a question becomes clearer, it would have been likely that a solution would have addressed future adverse situations. 

As companies see their businesses compromised by the semiconductor shortage of 2021, it becomes more sensible to seek out the problems and pose the questions for “discussion” and “solution.”

For the pain many had been experiencing in 2021, it would have been worth it if they had only sought and solve problems then. 

It’s never really good to dwell in the past unless we learn something from it. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Finding Fault in Who versus in What

There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing going around. 

People pointing to other people as causes of problems:

  • One country points to another for the coronavirus pandemic. 
  • One politician points to another for failure in stopping the spread of the virus;
  • A restaurant owner blames a vendor’s delay in deliveries as reason for the lack of items on a menu;
  • A manager blames an office worker for poor sales performance;
  • Fans ask “Who’s at fault for why our team didn’t make the playoffs?” and the next thing we see is the head coach getting fired.

We tend to find fault in people.  And we do that a lot.  Just read the newspapers and we see people blaming other people.  Anything from crime, accidents, or plain gossip, someone is hitting somebody else for the issue.   

Rather than say: “Who’s at fault?”  maybe we should first ask: “What’s at fault?” 

Right there and then, the paradigm shifts from outright blame to a study of the circumstances behind any incident. 

  • “What, instead of who, started the pandemic?”
  • “What, instead of who, brought about the spread of the virus?”
  • “What, instead of who, caused the delay in deliveries of needed supplies for the restaurant?”
  • “What, instead of who, led to the enterprise’s poor sales performance?”
  • “What, instead of who, did we do wrong that our team didn’t make the playoffs?”

Just by substituting “Who” with “What,” our frame of mind, even our attitude and feelings, change.  Our ill feelings toward a suspect diminish. We switch from witch-hunters to problem-solvers.

When a problem strikes, it may be good to take a deep breath, get our thoughts together, and remind ourselves to start asking questions with “What” before “Who.”

One word can really make a difference. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

Why We Need to Define the Bigger Problem*

“Houston, We Have a Problem”

When Apollo 13 astronauts reported an explosion on their space module, NASA’s Houston Mission Control contemplated on continuing the mission and land on the moon.  It was only when NASA realized that the problems were life-threatening that it was decided to abort the mission and to have the astronauts return to Earth safely. 

We tend to define problems by its symptoms and how it affects our agenda.  NASA had an agenda to get Apollo 13 to the moon and at first stuck to that mission even with the reports of an explosion and the resulting problems. 

We apply this thinking in our daily lives. 

If we get sick, the first thing we look for is medicine to relieve pain and discomfort.  

If our car won’t start in the morning, we look under the hood to see if there is a quick fix.  If we can’t find any, we hail a taxi or find a ride via Uber or Grab so we won’t be late to wherever we’re going.  Car repair comes later when we have time or we delegate it to someone else to do the fixing. 

We try to solve problems with remedies and quick fixes that as much as possible won’t interfere with our agenda.  We almost all to often react to problems as obstacles that are to be removed or bypassed via the easiest means possible.

Hence, when it comes to problems, we all too often seek solutions as soon as possible.  

We classify problems as either big or small.  A small problem has an obvious and easy solution.  A big problem needs figuring out, planning, and allocation of resources. 

But sometimes a problem, whether big or small, is part of a bigger problem that may not be apparent. 

A bigger problem may be a root cause for the smaller problems or a flaw in a system that has yet to be detected.  It can also be an opportunity which is manifesting itself in a changing environment.

For example, a small online retail business that is experiencing steadily growing sales has hired more people to meet the growing demand.  The head count has grown to a point where preparing the payroll has become more time-consuming and complicated.  The business owners, in response, install a customized payroll system and train clerks to run it.  After a while, the business owners notice the overhead costs are going up so they engage an accountant to streamline the budgeting and charging of expenses.  Profits do grow but the accountant’s reports show rapid increases in the costs of rent, insurance, and electricity.  The business owners hire a consultant who recommends renegotiating the contracts for rent, finding another insurance provider, and buying a more efficient air-conditioning system that uses less electricity.

Finally, the business owners realize that their business is just getting too big to manage on their own so they form a partnership with an investor who infuses capital and hires professional executives.  The online business becomes a bigger company that grows tenfold in succeeding years

The online retail business company addressed problems as they came but wasn’t aware of the bigger problem until it became apparent.  The business was just getting too big to manage.  

Solving the bigger problem begins with a fuzzy situation.  The online retail business is getting too big.  That’s a fuzzy situation.  It spurs questions.  Why is it getting too big?  What makes us say it is getting too big?  How did it become too big? 

Answering the questions from the fuzzy situation provides information about the problem behind the fuzzy situation.  The information becomes the springboard to clarify what the problem is all about.  The online retail business is getting too big from the higher sales.  The organization has grown in head count.  Costs to accommodate the higher head count such as rent, insurance, and electricity have gone up.  The business has hired more people to manage the head count. 

From the information gathered, the business can then begin to define the problem.  Defining the problem does not necessarily mean identifying a cause or an issue.  One should avoid the pitfall of jumping to a conclusion such as, in the online business example, saying that the the business has become unproductive because of the higher head count.

Defining the problem requires asking in-depth questions.  How can we manage the business better in lieu of higher sales?  How might we become more productive?  In what ways can we reduce costs? 

The online retail business selected the first question:  how can we manage the business better in lieu of higher sales.  The owners chose this question as the one that defined the problem based on criteria.  That criteria come from the business owners’ mission, goals, and strategy.  The online business wanted to be a fast-growing company with high market share and revenue within five (5) years.  Hence, the owners chose the question “how can we manage the business better in lieu of higher sales” as their problem.

It doesn’t stop there.  The problem may be defined more sharply over more information and thought.  The problem may become “how might we increase sales without incurring higher costs?”  Or “how might we expand our product lines without having to hire more people?” 

It is when the owners settle on a specific question that they would have defined their problem. 

*originally published on February 8, 2019 on LinkedIn

About Overtimers Anonymous

Burning Platforms and How to Prevent Them

A proprietor who sells electrical products was experiencing a dramatic drop in sales.  He hires a consultant who comes from a large multinational corporation and asks him what can be done. 

The consultant suggests that the proprietor develop a vision, mission, objectives, and strategies (VMOS) for his business.  The consultant conducts a team-building session with the proprietor and his staff and for several days, they draft and formulate a VMOS.  When they finally finish with a fancy-worded VMOS, the consultant presents the VMOS to all the employees and stakeholders.  When the consultant went to collect his fee, the proprietor asks the consultant, “so when are we going to talk about my falling sales?” 

The phrase, “burning platform” takes its origin from a story about three (3) men on a North Sea oil rig that was on fire.  Two (2) men decided to jump into the icy waters while one (1) man opted to stay.  The two (2) men who jumped were badly injured from their fall but rescuers were able to save them.  The man who stayed on the platform died.  Management consultants have cited this story as a lesson that when faced with an urgent crisis, one should take risks and go for deliberate change.  Otherwise, if one does nothing, the business dies. 

The proprietor of electric relays was on a burning platform; his business was on fire in the form of falling sales.  The clueless consultant he hired didn’t address the urgency of the problem.  The consultant focused more on what he was good at from being an executive at a multinational. He ignored the crisis happening to the proprietor. 

Many managers complain about frequent “fires” that disrupt their daily routines and preoccupy their time and resources.  Some executives cite a variety of reasons for these “fires,” from lack of leadership to poor discipline.  The executives would form committees, hold strategy meetings, scold managers for poor judgment, or blame poor discipline among rank-and-file employees.  Whatever they prescribe, these executives would miss the point that there’s a crisis that urgently needs to be addressed.    

Crises, like burning oil platforms, don’t just go away.  True, a fire may burn itself out, but even if they did, they’d leave a lot of damage.  When there’s a fire, everyone either runs to put it out or runs away.  No person in his right mind would just sit there idly by and get himself burned. 

Unfortunately, many executives don’t know a crisis even if it’s raging in front of them.  It’s what we would call denial, a reaction inherent in human nature.   We deny and ignore a crisis to believe it is not happening, that there can’t be a threat. 

Most of the client firms I’ve diagnosed have burning platforms.  Some are big, some are small; but urgent crises nonetheless that disrupt operations, reduce sales, increase costs, and cause other problems.  Burning platforms are often fast-moving fires that eat away the insides of a business and challenge the cores of an organisation.

Managers of course need to address burning platforms.  The key is to know that there is one.  Sometimes, managers, especially high-level executives, don’t realise they have one.  The following are situational examples of burning platforms that executives sometimes ignore until it’s too late: 

  1. Treasury managers pointing out critical cash-flow balances and immediately urging field sales personnel to collect receivables from customers;
  2. Manufacturing managers alerting purchasing executives that their raw materials are running out because vendors didn’t deliver as scheduled;
  3. Logistics managers facing a shortage of trucks as senior marketing executives complain of empty supermarket shelves where new products are supposed to be;
  4. Information system contractors alerting the firm’s chief information officer (CIO) that the company’s data centre’s room’s air-conditioning has broken down and the IT system is in danger of shutting down. 

What should an enterprise do about burning platforms?  Put them out, of course.  What would it take to do it?  Everything that one can muster.  It is a fire!

  • One does not ignore a fire.  One works to put it out now and until it’s out;
  • And when we say out, we should mean really out, to the extent that whatever caused it won’t ignite again.  

The best solution against burning platforms is preventing them in the first place.  The means to do that is usually via having relevant and effective monitoring systems and risk management measures

It starts with having plans and policies that consider potential risks and include contingencies.   

These plans and policies should answer questions like:

  • What to do when customer collections are falling behind?
  • What’s the inventory policy when raw material stocks are running low?
  • What’s the plan when projections show not enough trucks next week to deliver orders?
  • What’s the backup plan in case the Internet server crashes? 
  • Who will take over, work from home, or substitute when members of staff are found to be infected with the CoVid-19 virus? 

Any plan or policy should have pre-approved procedures against pre-defined crises such that the organisation can immediately take action without having to go through time-consuming justifications to top management.  Of course, managers should always notify executives when a crisis is imminent and action should be taken. 

Common sense dictates that when there’s a burning platform, we either try putting it out or run for safety.  Sometimes, however, we deny there’s a burning platform crisis and we go about our business until we and our enterprises are consumed. 

Recognising the existence of a crisis is important but prevention is key to avoiding any crisis.  Plans and policies that take into account potential risks, build in contingencies, and allow immediate pre-approved action would help a lot in keeping any new crisis from getting too big if not stifling them at the start. 

We should never sit idly by when there’s a crisis and even if there isn’t one. 

About Overtimers Anonymous

The Feasibility Study Ends with a Plan, Not A Solution

The feasibility study consists of the following steps:

  • Defining the Problem
  • Brainstorming Possible Solutions
  • Developing Criteria for the Solution
  • Evaluation and Selection of the Solution
  • Assessing the Solution’s Practicality and Benefits
  • Making a Plan

It starts with defining the problem.  It ends with a plan.

A lot of people make the mistake of ending a feasibility study with a solution. 

After they have the answer, many of them neglect to ask “what’s next?” 

They rely on the stakeholders to figure that last step out.  That’s a big mistake because most of the time, the stakeholders have no clue as to how to do so. 

The process of finding a solution begins with brainstorming.  This is already controversial as some would argue that one should first set criteria for whatever idea or answer is presented.

What inventory and procurement policy should we establish? 

Brainstormed ideas:

  • Buy only when customer orders?
  • Eliminate all items except ten (10) fast-selling products?
  • Keep no stock of top 20 most expensive items to make?
  • Have a single exclusive vendor for each material item and make vendor accountable for inventory?
  • Have at least three (3) suppliers per material item purchased and keep at least one (1) month’s equivalent worth of sales per item? 
  • Put all inventory on a huge container vessel that would constantly be at sea and move from one port to the next to load and unload merchandise?

Brainstorming comes first because it is a no-holds barred free-thinking exercise that allows minds to capture all the thoughts possible to address the problem.  Nothing is filtered or evaluated.  Every thought is acceptable and listed.

Criteria comes afterward but they should relate to values, principles, and strategic objectives. 

Examples of Criteria:

  1. Solution has to be easy to implement;
  2. There should be minimal risk in running out-of-stock;
  3. There should be minimal investment in training and education:
  4. Material costs should not increase;
  5. Working capital should decrease.    

Brainstormed ideas are then filtered based on the criteria.  Those that obviously wouldn’t fit are thrown out outright.  The ideas that qualify would remain.

The remaining ideas then pass through an evaluation process. 

The evaluation process is mostly an intuitive one.  Whereas defining a problem depends a great deal on data gathering, analyses, and presentation of evidence, evaluating candidates in search for the best idea or answer to a problem is mostly done via perception and insight. 

We weigh candidates against the criteria we developed earlier.  The weighing is an attempt at rational calculation but most of how we do it is based on opinion.  We predict benefits on what we think will happen, not really with any rationale. 

A feasibility study is a contrast between the rational definition of a problem and the intuitive search for a solution.  That’s why as soon as a solution is selected, we need to refine it and move forward to developing it into a plan on how to make it into a reality. 

Refining the selected solution or idea is simply clarification of what we think needs to be done.  Whereas a problem is best described in the form of a question, a solution should come out in the form of an action plan.

As an action plan, a solution or selected idea should follow a SMAC format.  It should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, but Challenging. 

We will develop an ABC Inventory & Purchasing Policy. 

A feasibility study ends with a plan, not a recommended solution. Solutions are intuitive but a plan brings it into reality. 

With a plan, an organisation will know what to do next. 

About Overtimers Anonymous